Balfour case raises a bigger question of ethics
A common objection to certain ethics reforms, particularly a cap on gifts legislators receive from lobbyists, is that voters can judge for themselves if representatives cross the line.
House Speaker David Ralston used to argue thus against a gift cap. He reversed course and endorsed a total ban on gifts after voters in July’s primaries overwhelmingly rejected the no-limits status quo.
I think Ralston had it half-right before (the transparency of gift reports helps the public know who’s lobbying whom) and has it half-right now (transparency alone is insufficient, and a limit is necessary). I prefer a gift cap to a gift ban.
Once there’s a limit, it should be up to the voters to decide if a frequent gift recipient should serve in the Legislature. But serving in the leadership? That’s for legislators to decide — and to demonstrate their own ethical standards.
If you followed the news last week, you probably know where I’m going with this.
Last Tuesday, the AJC reported a Georgia Bureau of Investigation probe of state Sen. Don Balfour. The Snellville Republican is one gift-laden lawmaker: In May, the AJC reported he received tickets to more than 120 events, valued at more than $22,000, over the past six years. But the gifts are only indirectly related to the case.
The GBI said it is investigating Balfour for filing false expense reports, seeking tax-funded reimbursement of mileage between his home and the Capitol on days he was out of the state. Balfour has already agreed to repay some $1,100 in mileage claims, as well as a $5,000 fine levied by the Senate Ethics Committee.
Here’s where the gift angle comes in: Balfour was known to have been out of town because lobbyists reported paying for his meals and lodging while he was gone. Transparency was crucial in this case.
Now, Balfour is not just any senator. He’s the chairman of the Senate Rules Committee. That committee decides which pieces of legislation may go before the whole Senate. That role makes the committee very powerful, and its chairman one of the most powerful people under the Gold Dome.
The ethical question in Balfour’s case is not limited to false reporting. One of his other duties as Rules chair is to form a subcommittee to audit senators’ expense reports, including his own. He never did so.
The value Balfour places on being Rules chairman was evident in a fundraising email last month, as reported by PeachPundit.com (a campaign consultant did not return a phone call to confirm it). Balfour mentioned the role, then asked donors to consider giving at an “investment level” ranging from $250 to $2,500. The dollar figures aren’t as noteworthy as the word “investment,” which of course implies a possible return. I’m just brainstorming here, but maybe that return is knowing legislation you support has a better chance of making it to the Senate floor, while legislation you oppose stands to be stalled.
Gwinnett voters can decide in November whether to send the, ahem, gifted Balfour back to the Senate. But Senate leaders must decide whether to foist him, his “investors” and their priorities on the rest of the state by keeping him as Rules chairman.
They could decide congressional Republicans are right to limit how long one of their members can chair a particular committee. (Balfour has chaired Rules since 2003.) They could be more direct and decide Balfour is unfit to continue as chair. Or they could leave him in place.
Their decision will tell more about them than about Balfour.
– By Kyle Wingfield
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
129 comments Add your comment
Skip
September 17th, 2012
4:14 pm
Gifts are people too my friend.
Towncrier
September 17th, 2012
5:07 pm
Good afternoon, all. I am just bopping by to make everyone aware of a great set of questions to be asked of both Obama and Romney and developed by Michael Medved:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/09/15/michael-medved-crafts-tough-questions-for-the-presidential-debates.html
Take a gander and see what you think.
Finn McCool (The System isn't Broken; It's Fixed)
September 17th, 2012
5:17 pm
From Politifact regardng the claim that Obama promised to keep unemployment below 8%:
Each time, we rated the claim Mostly False.
Projection vs. promise
First, we have never found an instance of anyone in the administration making a public pledge to keep unemployment below 8 percent. The source for Romney’s and the others’ statements is a Jan. 9, 2009, report called “The Job Impact of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan” from Christina Romer, then chairwoman of the president’s Council of Economic Advisers, and Jared Bernstein, the vice president’s top economic adviser.
Their report projected that the stimulus plan would create 3 to 4 million jobs by the end of 2010. The report also included a chart predicting unemployment rates with and without the stimulus. Without the stimulus (the baseline), unemployment was projected to hit about 8.5 percent in 2009 and then continue rising to a peak of about 9 percent in 2010. With the stimulus, they predicted the unemployment rate would peak at just under 8 percent in 2009.
The important word here is projection. The economic analysis wasn’t a promise, it was an educated assessment of how events might unfold. And it came with heavy disclaimers.
Finn McCool (The System isn't Broken; It's Fixed)
September 17th, 2012
5:20 pm
Towncrier, you make me laugh. Those softball questions from Medved aren’t going to get asked.
Romney will be asked for specific loopholes he plans to close.
Medved is a silly man – angry but silly.
Finn McCool (The System isn't Broken; It's Fixed)
September 17th, 2012
5:24 pm
This is how gullible you Cons are:
“Michael Medved Crafts Tough Questions for the Presidential Debates”
That headline wasn’t written by an editor or a journalist or an objective third party, it was written by the author of said Questions. Here is the full tagline.
Michael Medved Crafts Tough Questions for the Presidential Debates
by Michael Medved
That’s like Finn McCool writing an article called
“The exact truth that most Americans can’t see or admit to.”
by Finn McCool
Oh, dang – that must be some real truth in there!
Towncrier
September 17th, 2012
5:27 pm
“Towncrier, you make me laugh. Those softball questions from Medved aren’t going to get asked…
Medved is a silly man – angry but silly.”
Call me a gambler, but I would bet top dollar YOU did not graduate from Yale at 19. I posted these same questions on Jay’s blog and got a number of favorable responses from regulars there. It seems you are the only one who considers them to be softballs and abdicates any responsibility to think for yourself by dismissively sniffing your nose at their author. Couldn’t a better case be made for calling you a “silly man”?
Bob Loblaw
September 17th, 2012
5:32 pm
Every contribution is an investment. You’re buying into the Candiate’s agenda.
Towncrier
September 17th, 2012
5:32 pm
“From Politifact regardng the claim that Obama promised to keep unemployment below 8%: Each time, we rated the claim Mostly False.”
LOL. We get unthinking criticism of Medved from someone who slavishly cites the “fact checking” of Politifact – a service that has been shown to be wrong on a number of occasions by both liberals and conservatives and which Maddow (a commentator the poster probably loves) has publicly said should be put out of business. Irony, thy name is Finn.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
September 17th, 2012
5:33 pm
“Couldn’t a better case be made for calling you a “silly man”?”
Wouldn’t get an argument from most of the people on this blog.
Hillbilly D
September 17th, 2012
5:34 pm
Every contribution is an investment. You’re buying into the Candiate’s agenda.
Or you’re buying him for yours………..
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
September 17th, 2012
5:38 pm
And once again showing Politifact to the left-leaning hacks they claim NOT to be:
“Economist Christina Romer regrets saying jobless rate would stay below 8 percent”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/06/AR2010080606271.html
Good thing they “have never found an instance of anyone in the administration making a public pledge to keep unemployment below 8 percent.”
I found it in less than 5 minutes.
Hillbilly D
September 17th, 2012
5:41 pm
I read the questions from the link provided by Towncrier. I’d like to see those questions asked but I’d be surprised to get a straight answer to any of them.
Towncrier
September 17th, 2012
5:44 pm
“Good thing they “have never found an instance of anyone in the administration making a public pledge to keep unemployment below 8 percent….I found it in less than 5 minutes.”
I think I might start referring to that service as Politifiction from now on. I think it is perhaps more accurate a name.
yuzeyurbrane
September 17th, 2012
5:45 pm
Kyle, it seems like we have views in common when it comes to good govt. issues. My only small exception to your article is that I don’t read so much into Balfour’s use of the term “investment level” donation. As one who receives many fundraising pitches from organizations across the spectrum, I get a chuckle out of some to the terms they use to massage the egos of large contributors. Like “Platinum” or “Gold” level donors, etc., etc. Georgia legislators don’t originate anything, whether it be legislation or flyers. Just as likely he or a staffer saw it in fundraising flyer they received and liked the ring of it.
Towncrier
September 17th, 2012
5:46 pm
“I read the questions from the link provided by Towncrier. I’d like to see those questions asked but I’d be surprised to get a straight answer to any of them.”
You are probably (and sadly) right, HD. But the body language (squirming) would be telling, wouldn’t it?
Hillbilly D
September 17th, 2012
5:51 pm
Towncrier @ 5:46
This is true and as I believe, you can often tell more about a man by what he doesn’t say than by what he does.
Dave
September 17th, 2012
6:05 pm
I don’t understand this “it’s going to happen anyway, why ban gifts” mentality. Murder is going to happen – make it legal?
MarkV
September 17th, 2012
6:18 pm
“We get unthinking criticism of Medved from someone who slavishly cites the “fact checking” of Politifact – a service that has been shown to be wrong on a number of occasions by both liberals and conservatives”
Isn’t it funny, when people attack the source, rather than presenting an argument for or against what the source says? Any objective consideration of the issue shows clearly that the 8% figure for unemployment was indeed a projection, not a promise.
@@
September 17th, 2012
6:18 pm
Their decision will tell more about them than about Balfour.
If they don’t pull “the chair” out from under him, it’s probably because he knows where the bodies are buried.
Politics are a n-a-s-t-y business.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
September 17th, 2012
6:23 pm
“Any objective consideration of the issue shows clearly that the 8% figure for unemployment was indeed a projection, not a promise.”
And it all depends on what the meaning of “is”, is. . . .
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
September 17th, 2012
6:26 pm
Anything for the “Take no responsibility – we’re never wrong” bunch currently in the White House, eh, MarkV?
Towncrier
September 17th, 2012
6:48 pm
“Isn’t it funny, when people attack the source, rather than presenting an argument for or against what the source says? Any objective consideration of the issue shows clearly that the 8% figure for unemployment was indeed a projection, not a promise.”
Of course it always helps to understand the gist of a post or thread before responding in an unrelated fashion.
Streetracer
September 17th, 2012
6:51 pm
I work for a state agency. The policy is that we can’t accept anything from anyone. A strict reading would mean that my son couldn’t give me a birthday or christmas present.
killerj
September 17th, 2012
6:56 pm
Awww come on! you mean that escalade and box of pecans ain,t gonna get my easement done! those pecans were worth their weight in gold! dam.
MarkV
September 17th, 2012
6:59 pm
Towncrier @ 6:48 pm
I know, your comment had nothing to do with the subject matter of the original post, only the fact that that post cited Politifact. Tell it to the Marines.
Towncrier
September 17th, 2012
7:14 pm
“I know, your comment had nothing to do with the subject matter of the original post, only the fact that that post cited Politifact. Tell it to the Marines.”
Plod on then, soldier. Let’s hear your defense of services that call themselves “fact checkers” being named so (instead of a far less presumptuous and misleading name like “claim analyzer” or some such thing). And let’s hear your rationale for why they are legitimately so named when it can only be assumed that not everyone is going to independently evaluate the validity of the simplistic overall rating (even in the form of an icon) by tracking back through the sources and looking at competing arguments? In short, please tell all of us why we should be obligated to fact check a service that calls itself a “fact checker”.
getalife
September 17th, 2012
7:19 pm
Looks like the good ole boy network is alive and well.
When congress gets legal unlimited bribes, you can hang it up on ethics.
Hillbilly D
September 17th, 2012
7:24 pm
Who fact checks the fact checkers?
cc
September 17th, 2012
7:41 pm
Here’s a little item I found interesting, and feel it should interest all the veterans reading and posting here. The author of the following is Bill Gertz. If you have further interest, Google the author or the subject. I’m particularly interested in any comments from veterans who support the re-election of Obama?
++++++
“The Obama administration’s proposed defense budget calls for military families and retirees to pay sharply more for their health care, while leaving unionized civilian defense worker’ benefits untouched.”
“Several congressional aides suggested the move is designed to increase the enrollment in Obamacare’s state-run insurance exchanges.”
“The disparity in treatment between civilians and uniformed personnel is causing a backlash within the military that could undermine recruitment and retention.”
“Significantly, the plan calls for increases between 30 percent to 79 percent in Tricare annual premiums for the first year. After that, the plan will impose five-year increases ranging from 94 percent to 345 percent – more than three times current levels.”
MarkV
September 17th, 2012
7:45 pm
Towncrier @ 7:14 pm
One more time; perhaps you grasp it this time. I did not defend Politifact, which I have my own disagreements with. But the subject of that particular post was whether the 8% unemployment figure was a projection or a promise, and it incidentally quoted what PolitiFact said about that subject. Instead of arguing the subject, you chose to attack Poltifact. If you want us to believe that you would have similarly attacked a quote from Politifact favorable to Romney, then I say again – tell it to the Marines.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
September 17th, 2012
7:54 pm
“But the subject of that particular post was whether the 8% unemployment figure was a projection or a promise”
Yeah, ’cause we can’t cover this administration’s a$$ if we call it a promise, so we’ll just rename it to a “projection”.
Hillbilly D
September 17th, 2012
7:56 pm
When a politician “projects”, it’s an implied promise the way I see it. Six of one, half dozen of the other.
Del
September 17th, 2012
8:00 pm
Towncrier,
You are among the best lib busters. Give em hell on Bookman and post here often.
They BOTH suck
September 17th, 2012
8:03 pm
cc
I am sure you validated those tricare numbers from a DOD or Tricare site, right?
They BOTH suck
September 17th, 2012
8:07 pm
cc(td)
Army Times while not the DOD or tricare by any means is not validating your numbers.
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2012/03/military-lawmakers-promise-fight-against-tricare-increases-032812w/
Can you assist with numbers to validate what you posted or admit you ran with numbers because you thought it made a great political point?
Thanks
MarkV
September 17th, 2012
8:10 pm
Hillbilly D @ 7:56 pm
“When a politician “projects”, it’s an implied promise the way I see it. “
Actually, it is the other way round. When a politician makes a promise, it is at best a projection. Nobody can absolutely predict future. If Romney “promises” 12 million jobs, and “delivers” only 10 million because of some bad economic conditions that he could not foresee, will you consider it a “broken promise?”
Del
September 17th, 2012
8:15 pm
cc, I’m not retired military, I served 1961-1967. Our military under Obama as CiC has managed to alienate those who wear the uniform with his outlandish announcement of withdrawal timetables from Afghanistan, his disregard for military leaders who cautioned him against complete removal of our forces from Iraq to his embrace of homosexuals in the military by his backdoor repeal of DADT. My contacts tell me re-enlistments are on the decline and more officers are now resigning their commissions. Not good for are all volunteer military. Wrong president at the wrong time for America.
Del
September 17th, 2012
8:17 pm
Sorry…Not good for OUR all volunteer military.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
September 17th, 2012
8:22 pm
” If Romney “promises” 12 million jobs, and “delivers” only 10 million because of some bad economic conditions that he could not foresee, will you consider it a “broken promise?””
I’ll consider it about 4 times the number this current Disaster-in-Chief delivered, and I’ll bet it will have been done cheaper, too!
They BOTH suck
September 17th, 2012
8:22 pm
del
Recruiting slip this year?
FY2011: All branches met their goals
Towncrier
September 17th, 2012
8:25 pm
“One more time; perhaps you grasp it this time. I did not defend Politifact, which I have my own disagreements with. But the subject of that particular post was whether the 8% unemployment figure was a projection or a promise, and it incidentally quoted what PolitiFact said about that subject. Instead of arguing the subject, you chose to attack Poltifact.”
And one more time, the gist of my posts was to call into question Finn’s out-of-hand dismissal of Medved as a legitimate source of information while AT THE SAME TIME uncritically citing Politifact without apparently knowing (or acknowledging) that service has had many documented problems with veracity. I made NO mention of the claim Politifact was “fact checking” and ended my post by saying “Irony, thy name is Finn.”
You, on the other hand, despite your denial of wishing to defend such services, used MY post (rather than Finn’s or – better – Tiberius” @ 5:38) as a jumping off point to make a point unrelated (as you have admitted) to mine, beginning with this question: “Isn’t it funny, when people attack the source, rather than presenting an argument for or against what the source says?”. Who do you think you are kidding? You were defending their conclusion in this one instance and I think the service generally. Why the felt need to do so? There is a cynical side to me that suspects these services are calling themselves “fact checkers” for nefarious purposes (you know, like shaping the beliefs of those who don’t think well for themselves, or to put it another way and you seem fond of saying, telling it to the Marines).
Got it now?
They BOTH suck
September 17th, 2012
8:26 pm
Del
What a suprise, all branches met 2012 as well. You might need some new sources or they are feeding you bad intel for some reason or another
http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/military/article/Armed-Forces-recruiting-still-meeting-2012-goals-3696901.php
cc
September 17th, 2012
8:31 pm
They BOTH suck@8:03 pm:
I didn’t ‘validate’ anything. From my post, “If you have further interest, Google the author or the subject”.
They BOTH suck@8:07 pm:
For the record, I am not ‘td’ and will not respond to any further posts addressed in that manner.
From the link YOU provided me:
“The Defense Department’s proposed 2013 budget calls for an increase in annual enrollment fees for retirees in Tricare Prime to rise by 30 percent to 78 percent, depending on retirement income. Working-age retirees — those younger than 65 — also would pay annual enrollment fees for Tricare Standard and Extra: $70 for an individual and $140 for a family, and deductibles for those plans would rise by $10 for individuals and $20 for families.”
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
September 17th, 2012
8:31 pm
TBS, you DO realize that Del cited RE-enlistments as being down, and not recruiting goals, don’t you?
For every experienced soldier, sailor, airman or Marine we lose, it costs us a boatload of money to train new recruits, who then might put experienced personnel in harm’s way through inexperience.
If Del’s contacts are correct, this isn’t a good sign for the military.
They BOTH suck
September 17th, 2012
8:34 pm
Tiberius & Del
Thanks for the clarification. That was my oversight
Are the numbers higher than the average historical rates?
If so, then there could be problems. If they are in the norm and within states goals for each branch, then it is what it is
They BOTH suck
September 17th, 2012
8:35 pm
cc
I do not care who that gentlemen is or isn’t. I salute his service, however he isn’t the DOD or tricare.
Del
September 17th, 2012
8:36 pm
TBS, I only know what I’ve heard from people who I respect. I don’t respect stats as much…sorry. The economy and job availability aren’t particularly good and remaining in service is more appealing to those who aren’t that good.
They BOTH suck
September 17th, 2012
8:36 pm
cc
As for the numbers, I will ask my dad to see what his increase was or has he been notified.
Hillbilly D
September 17th, 2012
8:41 pm
If Romney “promises” 12 million jobs, and “delivers” only 10 million because of some bad economic conditions that he could not foresee, will you consider it a “broken promise?”
I will. I was always told to not let your mouth overload your ass. A smart man keeps his mouth shut about what he’s going to do, until he does it. They all get caught up in one-upping each other’s promises. It’s a fool’s game, in my opinion.
They BOTH suck
September 17th, 2012
8:42 pm
Del
Friend of mine is getting out at the end of the year. He is a Lt Col with 20 plus years, stationed at Ft Benning. He wants to see his kids finish school without another deployment.
He has been to Korea, Bosnia, Kuwait, Iraq (2) and Afganistan. He is done.
He really isn’t a political guy in terms of US politics. He bitches about Obama as much as he did Bush. He is more a libertarian. I doubt he even votes each election.